Every month, PSSA Presents ‘In Conversation With…’ will feature leading lights in the sector, PSSA members, and others who will be able to give insight into the current state of the physical security sector, and factors currently affecting it.
This month we speak to…
Yan Ferrieres
Yan has over 22 years’ experience in developing international distribution networks for HVM manufacturers.
He was the Head of Export at ATG Access for 15 years, and now runs an independent consultancy, advising clients such as Heald Ltd, and Husson International.
Q: Could you begin by telling us about your professional background and experience in perimeter security and hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM)?
YF: I had the chance to be mentored by an incredible entrepreneur. A charismatic man who assembled a superb team that bought into his vision, and helped to develop innovative solutions, that allowed a cutting-edge range of products to be delivered to the market. He was an incredible manager, that was able to attract the best talent to him and expand his business purely by his passion for it. I have 22 years of experience in developing international distribution networks for HVM manufacturers, including 15 years as Head of Export for ATG Access Ltd. I now run my own consultancy, delivering services for other suppliers, such as Heald, and Husson International.
Q: In your experience, how has perimeter security and HVM evolved in recent years, particularly in response to emerging threats?
YF: The need for perimeter security and Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) have both soared in recent years, as event organisers, local authorities and national infrastructure have had to raise their game to protect their assets and public from hostile actors. Recently, malicious attacks using Vehicles as a Weapon (VAW) have increased and present a new threat. Targeting of Data Centres is a currently rising risk that will present new opportunities to suppliers.
Q: What do you consider to be the most significant threats that perimeter security and HVM solutions need to address today?
YF: Threats identified by the Intelligence Services have shown that VAW attack methodology that is on the rise, more so than vehicles laden with explosives – although this remains a threat. Temporary HVM solutions and data centre protection are the new hot segments.
Q: How has technology enhanced the effectiveness of perimeter security and HVM systems, and what cutting-edge innovations do you see making a difference soon?
YF: Compliance to International Standards like ASTM/ PAS68/ IWA-14 and the new ISO 22343-1 are driving manufacturers to innovative excellence for HVM, much like the LPS standard does for perimeter security. Industry has been developing products to cater for all site requirements and specifications – such as shallow foundation solutions, delay-rated fences. I feel that motorised solutions (such as retractable bollards), easily deployable temporary solutions, and more integration with city centre landscapes, are the future.
Q: Do you feel there is sufficient clarity on testing standards for HVM equipment, such as those detailed by the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA), including the Vehicle Attack Delay Standard (VADS), ISO 22343-1, and international standards such as Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) testing?
YF: No. Clearly there’s not enough clarity and too much cross-over that is confusing the market. Organisations like NPSA drive the industry to develop solutions to mitigate the risk that has been identified. VADS vs DIN is a good example of the confusion, when NPSA don’t recognise DIN standard (but does recognise ISO). VADS tests are not carried out with the same vehicle that has been used for crash testing, and VADS is testing the product deployed in a different way from when it has been crash tested – which doesn’t really make sense.
Q: If there are gaps in clarity or inconsistencies in the existing standards, what would you suggest as potential solutions to improve the effectiveness and transparency of HVM testing standards?
YF: IWA-14 was supposed to harmonise both ASTM and PAS68 standards. This was a great and simple idea and had started to be accepted globally. Sadly, we must start again now with ISO 22343-1, and the VADS vs DIN issue is a backwards step, that has just created more confusion.
NPSA should identify the risks (which they do well) – but allow the manufacturers (like PSSA members) to analyse these risks together and come up with a set of solutions, instead of imposing VADS standard, and not giving manufacturers enough time to develop products and/or solutions.
Q: What are some of the key challenges that organisations will face when implementing effective perimeter security and HVM measures, if required to do so by Martyn’s Law?
YF: Education! Martyn’s Law is definitely a great thing, as it will encourage all stakeholders to understand the threat and to protect the public. It won’t eradicate the risk (of a terrorist attack) but will get everybody a lot more prepared, allowing sufficient time to plan. Specialist HVM manufacturers and installers should then be involved to provide correct measures to implement.
Q: How do you balance the need for robust security measures with the practicalities of maintaining open access and usability for legitimate users, such as in public spaces or corporate environments?
YF: There are a lot of solutions available on the market today. A good VDA (Vehicle Dynamics Assessment) and risk assessment should be done by a professional which will then lead the primary stakeholder to the right solution. However, we need to remember that no one product fits all! Permeability is, in my view, very important so that it allows for the easy evacuation of users.
Q: Can you share any real-world examples or case studies where your perimeter security/ HVM solutions have been successfully deployed to mitigate against hostile vehicle attacks?
YF: I won’t name any specific project, but many airports or recent big sporting events have seen measures being implemented that have done the job without creating fear for public.
Q: Looking ahead, what trends do you foresee in the perimeter security and HVM space, and what recommendations would you offer to organisations seeking to enhance their defences against vehicle-borne threats?
YF: HVM is now well-established in everyone’s mind. Some markets are obviously much more mature than others. An important driver remains education of best practices. Security consultants MUST be involved to define the right strategy to reduce risk by implementing the right measures. End users should then select a products and solutions that mitigates that risk but should not only be focused on the cost of purchasing the equipment, but what is the lifecycle cost of it. HVM products, if maintained well, should easily last 20 years. Other considerations that need to be addressed should include cost of installation, maintenance costs, and the energy cost to keep motorised units running for 20 years.